Medical Staff Bylaws, Essay Example

The obvious first action is to attempt to obtain as much information about what occurred as possible. The newspaper article is a good starting point but should not be relied upon as a reliable source. This process will take some time and there will likely be some fallout from this incident that will cause the hospital several public relations problems. Whether the accusations against Dr. Miller are legitimate or not, the reputation of the hospital must be safeguarded and, therefore, a suspension of Dr. Miller’s privileges must be considered immediately. The fact that Dr. Miller apparently advised the principal of his son’s school that he participated in the act that caused the injuries to the students lends credibility to the charges against Dr. Miller and the By-Laws of the hospital certainly provide that such a suspension would be justified. Although Section I (1) (c) does not specifically list being under criminal investigation as a grounds for such suspension the catch-all provision of such Article affords the hospital with the latitude necessary to impose such a suspension until the criminal investigation is completed. If criminal charges are never brought the issue of the suspension or termination of Dr. Miller’s privileges can be revisited but, in the interim, a suspension is certainly warranted for the good of the institution and its professional reputation.

In the event that Dr. Miller is willing to do so a conference should be held to allow him the opportunity to explain what occurred from his point of view. In light of the fact that a criminal investigation is being undertaken the likelihood of Dr. Miller being willing to participate is minimal. It is probable that Dr. Miller’s legal counsel will not allow him to be interviewed. Under the circumstances, Dr. Miller is facing not only criminal charges but also professional disciplinary proceedings and his legal counsel will be very careful in allowing him to comment. Aside from any conversation with Dr. Miller others involved in the incident should be interviewed as quickly as possible in order to obtain as much information as possible while the incident is fresh in everyone’s memory.

Although the full body of the By-Laws governing the operation of the hospital is not provided, Dr. Miller would most likely be entitled to a hearing on the issue of his summary suspension within a specified time from the date that the suspension is imposed.[1] The result of such hearing can result in a full administrative suspension by the hospital in regard to Dr. Miller’s privileges. Such hearing would not ordinarily be granted and, under most circumstances, the responsibility for requesting a hearing falls upon the shoulders of the suspended staff member.[2] Under the provisions of most institutional By-Laws, the decision making tribunal has a broad range of authority in conferring sanctions upon the medical practitioner. For example, under the provisions of the By-Laws of the University of California at San Francisco, Article 3.14.5.1.12, states that the Board can “impose such other corrective action as it deems warranted.”

The most significant problem facing the hospital is the time parameters. The criminal justice system moves slowly and a final determination regarding Dr. Miller’s criminal culpability will undoubtedly take longer than the in –house administrative process. As the By-laws do not specifically list a criminal conviction or criminal investigation as basis for suspension, the Executive Medical Board will be forced to base any termination of Dr. Miller’s privileges on a more generalized standard. Fortunately for the Board, the specific provisions under which Dr. Miller would have been originally suspended are broadly worded. Under the provisions in question, the Board is authorized to terminate or suspend Dr. Miller’s membership and privileges for nearly any cause. Under the circumstances presented in the instant case, the Board would possess the authority to take whatever action if deemed appropriate short of Dr. Miller’s being actually indicted or convicted of any criminal behavior. The By-Laws written by the unnamed institution where Dr. Miller works is afforded far more latitude in this regard than the sanctions provided under the terms of the referenced University of California, San Francisco By-Laws. Under the University of California By-Laws, the Executive Board’s sanctioning authority short of Dr. Miller’s being convicted would have been far more limited and subject to easier attack in the event that Dr. Miller chose to appeal a termination or suspension of his privileges based on mere criminal charge.

In mitigation of Dr. Miller’s ultimate suspension and/or termination will be the fact that he has apparently been quite active in addressing the needs of the community regarding providing services to the poor. Unfortunately, this is not likely to save him from losing his privileges at the hospital.

[1] e. g., University of California, San Francisco By-Laws of the Medical Staff, Article 3.14.4.6.

[2] e.g., University of California, San Francisco By-Laws of the Medical Staff, Article 3.15.1.2.